MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801665803 · doi:10.31274/icm-180809-938

Is There a Need for Stewardship or is Killing Weeds Good Enough?

2008· article· en· W2801665803 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael D. Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStewardship (theology)Computer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the introduction of glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean cultivars in 1996, GR crop have become the most rapidly and globally accepted agronomic practice in the history of agriculture (Anonymous 2007; Service 2007). In the United States (US), more than one billion cumulative acres of genetically engineered (GE) crops have been planted with most of these represented by GR crops (Gianessi 2005; Anonymous 2007; Service 2007; Gianessi 2008). Monsanto reported that their 2006 market share of glyphosate resistant crops (GRC) included 71.6 million acres of the soybean area, 34 million acres of corn, 11 .3 million acres of cotton, and 5.7 million acres of canola in the US and Canada (Anonymous 2006b). They anticipate that their GRC market share in US corn will approach 60 million acres by 2010 (Anonymous 2006a). In Iowa, GR soybeans are planted on an estimated 97% of the acres and GR corn is approaching 75% of the acres. All of the GR crops likely receive at least one and more often, two or more applications of glyphosate for weed control. Growers like the perception of simplicity and convenience of the GR-based crop systems, the consistent control of weeds and the lack of crop injury from glyphosate. However, despite the appearance of a successful weed control program, the soybean producer often fails to recognize the cost of simplicity and convenience: given the widespread adoption of GR crop systems, weed populations are changing and there is a critical need to include glyphosate stewardship in GR crop systems. The concurrent use of glyphosate in GRCs has resulted in the evolution of weeds that are resistant to glyphosate (Figure 1). There are now 14 different weed species that have glyphosate resistant biotypes (Heap 2004). Nine glyphosate resistant weed species have been identified in the US and six were confirmed glyphosate resistant since 2004. Importantly, it is apparent that weed populations are evolving resistance to glyphosate at an increasing rate. While alternative herbicides may still be effective and provide control of the glyphosate resistant weeds, resistance to many of the alternative herbicides also exists. Currently 183 herbicide resistant weed species are identified and many of these weeds are found in Iowa (Heap 2004). Thus it is critical to understand the implications of current weed control practices on future weed problems and assess the need to implement stewardship proactively to protect the sustainability of GRCs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0080.016
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Integrated Crop Management ConferenceSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207